Actually is the paper that i use. For me, the best one.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Availability of RA-4 paper
-
A
- Thread starter fophem
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Error
- Started by Tim80525
-
For Sale Leica Summicron-M 50mm F/2.0 Black 11826 V5 (Boxed 2018) (6-Bit)
- Started by jshcrlsn
-
For Sale CAMERA KIT
- Started by jeffreyg
-
For Sale Mint Nikon Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale 3 Mint Nikon D2X Camera Bodies
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
Actually is the paper that i use. For me, the best one.
I also use a polarizing filter. The saturation of color increases a lot.
Some examples (made with iPhone 13):
I have received a roll of Fuji Maxima matt. I will make some comparison prints with other types of paper and a "reference" negative I use for colour balancing purpose. I will post the results here if it's useful to others.
Yes I'm glad I made this step. Gives me more freedom as I don't have to rely on distributors and their "paper cutting policy". I've already cut some 8x10 sheets. Easy, I can only encourage others to do so. Now I just have to find larger size photopaper bags, seems to be difficult to find the 16x20 and 20x24 ones and my old spare ones are already used for B&W.
Yeah, I think so, too. Adox/Impex only offer up to 30x40cm: https://www.fotoimpex.com/archival/
You might drop them a line anyway since they also manufacture paper in bigger sizes, so they must have a supply of bags. Maybe they can sell you some as a special order.
Same with Foma; might be worth it to send them an email, too.
Here are the results of my comparison of fuji crystal archive glossy and fuji maxima matt.
For the tests, I've printed a cropped 135 fuji superia 400 home processed negative I usually take for colour balancing purpose. A little less boring than a colour test pattern, less precise also but enough for what I'm looking for. For those who care, it was taken with a Pentax LX and a 50/1,2 lens.
It was enlarged with a Durst L1200 equipped with a Heiland LED head. So it's RGB additive mixing instead of the more common YMC soustractive filtering. The lens is a 50mm APO rodagon N. The film-paper distance is 68cm (it's a crop so it's a quite high enlargement). The scans of the prints were made with an Epson V750, trying to make them as unprocessed as possible. I'm really not into digital and computers, so it may be another weakness of my tests but at least on my screen the results are quite representative.
To test for paper speed, I've tried to match the white daisy at the bottom of the picture. The white base of the Maxima is much clearer than the CA, so I was looking at the visible details, not the density. The contrast was then evaluated with the shadow details of the upper part of the picture.
For the colour balancing, once again I've tried to match the white daisy's cast (very slightly magenta) and the upper white flower (slightly yellow). I then watch how the other flowers and the green foliage “fall” and the cast of the upper picture shadows.
I have then made another set of test, printing the CA lighter (½ stop less) and trying to match the contrast with a post-flashed Maxima. I have used a simple diffusion glass under the lens and had to alter the colour settings of the flashing (less blue light). There is a faint magenta cast on the maxima. I left it like that, the purpose of that test was just to match the contrast.
For the tests, I've printed a cropped 135 fuji superia 400 home processed negative I usually take for colour balancing purpose. A little less boring than a colour test pattern, less precise also but enough for what I'm looking for. For those who care, it was taken with a Pentax LX and a 50/1,2 lens.
It was enlarged with a Durst L1200 equipped with a Heiland LED head. So it's RGB additive mixing instead of the more common YMC soustractive filtering. The lens is a 50mm APO rodagon N. The film-paper distance is 68cm (it's a crop so it's a quite high enlargement). The scans of the prints were made with an Epson V750, trying to make them as unprocessed as possible. I'm really not into digital and computers, so it may be another weakness of my tests but at least on my screen the results are quite representative.
To test for paper speed, I've tried to match the white daisy at the bottom of the picture. The white base of the Maxima is much clearer than the CA, so I was looking at the visible details, not the density. The contrast was then evaluated with the shadow details of the upper part of the picture.
For the colour balancing, once again I've tried to match the white daisy's cast (very slightly magenta) and the upper white flower (slightly yellow). I then watch how the other flowers and the green foliage “fall” and the cast of the upper picture shadows.
I have then made another set of test, printing the CA lighter (½ stop less) and trying to match the contrast with a post-flashed Maxima. I have used a simple diffusion glass under the lens and had to alter the colour settings of the flashing (less blue light). There is a faint magenta cast on the maxima. I left it like that, the purpose of that test was just to match the contrast.
My conclusions are :
The Maxima paper is ½ stop faster than the CA. It's also more contrasty (much more obvious on the actual prints than on the scans) I would evaluate it as 1 full grade if it were B&W and it can be quite easily managed with flashing.
The Maxima paper is cooler than the CA. I had to add 9 points green light and 15 blue. that means removing some magenta and yellow on a standard colour head, around 12M and 20Y, but that's only my evaluation, according to the colour head I used before the LEDs.
The Maxima paper base is whiter than the CA. The CA paper looks almost fogged compared to the Maxima
The Maxima paper is heavier and the quality feel is very good. The « texture » of my matt paper is also beautiful.
But what really stands out is the colour saturation. Compared to the Maxima, the CA colours look washed out, almost un-bleached. Obvious on the red flower and the green foliage. On the yellow flower the rendering is also completely different, looking less contrasty on the Maxima. Some dodge/burn could have been made for further adjustment, but it was not the purpose of this test.
The Maxima is really in another class. That's not a surprise, it's advertised as « pro » compared with the consumer grade CA, and it's obviously seen. Nevertheless the CA can be useful in some occasion where a more « calm » rendering is needed. I am going to order some sheets of Fuji velvet to see how it compares.
Voilà, hope this can be useful to others !
The Maxima paper is ½ stop faster than the CA. It's also more contrasty (much more obvious on the actual prints than on the scans) I would evaluate it as 1 full grade if it were B&W and it can be quite easily managed with flashing.
The Maxima paper is cooler than the CA. I had to add 9 points green light and 15 blue. that means removing some magenta and yellow on a standard colour head, around 12M and 20Y, but that's only my evaluation, according to the colour head I used before the LEDs.
The Maxima paper base is whiter than the CA. The CA paper looks almost fogged compared to the Maxima
The Maxima paper is heavier and the quality feel is very good. The « texture » of my matt paper is also beautiful.
But what really stands out is the colour saturation. Compared to the Maxima, the CA colours look washed out, almost un-bleached. Obvious on the red flower and the green foliage. On the yellow flower the rendering is also completely different, looking less contrasty on the Maxima. Some dodge/burn could have been made for further adjustment, but it was not the purpose of this test.
The Maxima is really in another class. That's not a surprise, it's advertised as « pro » compared with the consumer grade CA, and it's obviously seen. Nevertheless the CA can be useful in some occasion where a more « calm » rendering is needed. I am going to order some sheets of Fuji velvet to see how it compares.
Voilà, hope this can be useful to others !
This, combined with your experiences regarding filtering, suggests your CA paper may be old and indeed a little fogged. CA is as white as Maxima - as long as it's fresh. Once it's a year old or even older, it'll start to shift to yellow and the whites at some point will also start to become yellow.
A further explanation for the different filtration is that the Maxima paper has the same emulsion, but (much) thicker image-forming layers. As a result, there will be some (slight) light loss in the green-sensitive and especially blue-sensitive layers. Maxima also has a heavier top-coat and more effective UV-blocking, which I can imagine will also soak up a little blue light.
You're also spot-on with regards to your remarks about color saturation; I note the same when comparing e.g. Crystal Archive (and CA Supreme & Supreme HD) to DPII, with the DPII paper being significantly more saturated.
Yes, very much so.
You bet, thanks for posting!
On a related note - have you ever done a side by side comparison between your Heiland LED and an old-fashioned dichroic head?
mshchem
Allowing Ads
I have a question. I use (not as frequently as I should) Beseler Universal 45, dichro color heads. These use 3 individual halogen lamps, dichro filters, red, green and blue. Here's the interesting thing, the computer controller timer uses C,M,Y units, to keep it conventional.
Do all 3 RGB lamps fire to produce magenta and yellow filter pack?
Why does one need all 3 RGB LEDs to produce a print?
Not sure what you mean here, but all three color channels are needed to make a color exposure, yes.
Because color paper, like color film, is based on a tristimulus logic, so it has a red-, green- and blue-sensitive layer. All three need to be exposed in order to form a full color image. It's possible to leave out any of the channels and you are left with a partial color image. It's kind of fun/interesting, but not what most people are after.
However, I suspect I don't understand your questions correctly. Can you please clarify?
Edit/PS: see here, post #2 by @DREW WILEY : https://www.largeformatphotography....versal-45-Color-Head-Parts-and-Specifications
I think that answers part of your question. He's also evidently familiar with this type of color head; I'm not, so disregard my initial response.
mshchem
Allowing Ads
Yeah, this was Beseler's last and (IMHO finest color head) has 3 lamps, with stationary corresponding dichroic filter, red, green or blue. Two different controllers available one VC, ( you substitute a clear filter for red) in VC mode it uses green and blue channels. In color mode it uses a color controller that uses red, green, and blue channels.
The weird thing is the color controller, in an effort to stay compatible with Beseler's color analyzers, uses CMY units.
I have answered my one thick headed question while typing. Of course you need all three primary colors contributions.
With older true CMY heads, you start with white light (RGB) and then subtract what you don't want. (why you only need Y and M)
Additive heads are slower than the conventional CMY subtractive heads. I'm still fond of halogen sources (or Aristo VC heads)
The weird thing is the color controller, in an effort to stay compatible with Beseler's color analyzers, uses CMY units.
I have answered my one thick headed question while typing. Of course you need all three primary colors contributions.
With older true CMY heads, you start with white light (RGB) and then subtract what you don't want. (why you only need Y and M)
Additive heads are slower than the conventional CMY subtractive heads. I'm still fond of halogen sources (or Aristo VC heads)
Yeah that's it. I see now where your question comes from. Not using the C filter is a bit of red herring; you do of course also use the red channel. You just don't attenuate it usually when printing color negative.
Btw, I also programmed my own LED controlled to show M and Y "filter values" because I was (still am) accustomed to M/Y filtration. I think in the next version I'm going to throw that piece of legacy overboard and just call it what it is.
True the CA is a little more than one year old while the maxima is fresh. The CA looks perfectly white till you compare it with a fresh paper...
I've checked prints made while the paper was fresh, it's "almost" as white as the Maxima. I don't know, maybe the way it reflects the light, that's strange since the CA is glossy and the Maxima Matte. Or maybe just because the box was simply not perfectly fresh when I bought it.
Very interesting, I would think the red sensitive layer should be also affected. But the maxima is a little faster than the CA.
Yes, that's a very good point.
Not a serious one, I was too lazy I guess. I did it for B&W though. For colour, I did some very rough testing just to check the influence of colour settings on exposure time and how a "1 point" adjustment compares on both systems. I have to do a methodical testing on every colour channels, could be interesting. I just have to imagine a useful testing procedure.
I was also a little afraid of switching from subtractive to additive. It took not more than one or two days to be used to it.
That one is on top, so it's less affected by thicker functional layers blocking some of the light.
Mind you, it's just a wild hypothesis on my behalf.
My expectation is that you'll see significant color differences even if you try to color balance prints the same way. I was wondering if you observed something along those lines.
Indeed, the M and Y filter ranges on my controller are totally different from a regular dichroic source and that didn't cost me much time to get used to, either. It'll be the same for RGB. I sometimes print RGB already when testing something technical and it's just as intuitive.
On the Heiland, the colour settings go from 0 to 400. I always leave the red channel at 390 giving me a 10 points margin "just in case". It's probably stupid, I never had to use it...
Yes, what I can already say is that the effect of a 1 point adjustment with the LEDs is usually a little heavier than on the dichroic head. But that's just a matter of controller tuning by Heiland. Also, I write "usually" because to make a more affirmative statement I would have to check the linearity of adjustments over the complete range, and on the three channels.
Nevertheless, I can achieve the same results with both heads. That was enough for me, that's why I didn't make a more serious comparison. But I will!
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Beseler mainly made conventional CMY subtractive colorheads. Then they briefly offered an actual additive RGB pulsed xenon flashtube system; it was rather weak, but suitable for modest sized RA4 prints at least.
Then they experimented with an actual pulsing 3-bulb 750W RGB halogen additive head. It was good in concept but had all kinds of execution problems; and these units turned out to be quite temperamental in terms of electronics cross-talk and sensitivity to EMI (electomagnetic interference), as well wiring in the head overheating and sending confusing signals. And they never figured out how to properly diagnose these problems, so ended up refusing to repair them at all, which made a lot of enemies.
The two main problems is that they crammed too much electronics into too small a space, so that it would work on their own relatively modest 4x5 chassis. The second major problem is that the head doesn't have a strong enough cooling system for that much wattage, especially if you need to make long exposures (and Cibachrome was still quite popular when those came out).
I relied on some help from others, but basically re-engineered the system, cannibalized what I liked, and replaced what I didn't, and ended up with greater, more even light output with less headaches, and use one of those atop my 5x7 Durst chassis with a custom mirror box diffuser. Most of the time it's a dream to work with, for either color or VC paper. But you don't want to turn it on if voltage fluctuations are in risk, like during a lightning storm or utility work in the area, or leave it on too long at a time unless it's a relatively cool day.
Marketing-wise, calling it the Beseler Universal was simply confusing, since that "Universal" term was assigned to all kinds of things Beseler. What they evidently meant was that by simply removing the red filter and substituting a colorless one in its place, the head was re-equipped to work in tandem with their dedicated VC pushbutton box instead of the color one.
Be VERY carful buying used ones of these - they're likely to be dysfunctional unless specifically tested first. Even half the new ones didn't work, mostly due to substandard triacs (which are cheap and easy to replace).
Then they experimented with an actual pulsing 3-bulb 750W RGB halogen additive head. It was good in concept but had all kinds of execution problems; and these units turned out to be quite temperamental in terms of electronics cross-talk and sensitivity to EMI (electomagnetic interference), as well wiring in the head overheating and sending confusing signals. And they never figured out how to properly diagnose these problems, so ended up refusing to repair them at all, which made a lot of enemies.
The two main problems is that they crammed too much electronics into too small a space, so that it would work on their own relatively modest 4x5 chassis. The second major problem is that the head doesn't have a strong enough cooling system for that much wattage, especially if you need to make long exposures (and Cibachrome was still quite popular when those came out).
I relied on some help from others, but basically re-engineered the system, cannibalized what I liked, and replaced what I didn't, and ended up with greater, more even light output with less headaches, and use one of those atop my 5x7 Durst chassis with a custom mirror box diffuser. Most of the time it's a dream to work with, for either color or VC paper. But you don't want to turn it on if voltage fluctuations are in risk, like during a lightning storm or utility work in the area, or leave it on too long at a time unless it's a relatively cool day.
Marketing-wise, calling it the Beseler Universal was simply confusing, since that "Universal" term was assigned to all kinds of things Beseler. What they evidently meant was that by simply removing the red filter and substituting a colorless one in its place, the head was re-equipped to work in tandem with their dedicated VC pushbutton box instead of the color one.
Be VERY carful buying used ones of these - they're likely to be dysfunctional unless specifically tested first. Even half the new ones didn't work, mostly due to substandard triacs (which are cheap and easy to replace).
Last edited:
I'd very much like to see that. The reason is that I doubt it's the case. Close, but not exactly the same. The approach of using narrow-band RGB instead of broad-band CMY is too fundamentally different to yield precisely the same outcome. This is true for the negative (where you get different degrees of crosstalk between the channels) as well as the paper itself (which you could demonstrate by making some monochromatic step wedges and determining the chromacity at various density levels). The practical relevance of all this of course is limited if you're happy with your results, so it's more of an academic interest of mine.
Another, more empirical reason why I suspect there's a difference because I briefly exchanged messages with someone who used a dichroic head and a Heiland LED head extensively and reported distinct differences.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |